Posted
by
Soulskill
on Sunday March 31, 2013 @04:27AM
from the protecting-you-from-yourselves dept.

An anonymous reader writes "A man with a neurological disorder is currently pushing the TSA to release a full list of its policies and procedures after a series of incidents in which he was harassed while trying to fly. His condition requires medical liquids and causes episodic muteness, and the TSA makes his encounters very difficult. From January: 'Boston Logan TSA conducted an illegal search of my xray-cleared documents (probably motivated either by my opting out or by my use of sign language to communicate). They refused to give me access to the pen and paper that I needed to communicate. Eventually they gave it to me, but then they took it away in direct retaliation for my using it to quote US v Davis and protest their illegal search (thereby literally depriving me of speech). They illegally detained me for about an hour on spurious, law enforcement motivated grounds (illegal under Davis, Aukai, Fofana, Bierfeldt, etc). ... TSA has refused to comply with the ADA grievance process; they are over a month beyond the statutory mandate for issuing a written determination.'"

Agreed, there are places in the US that I'd like to visit, but frankly I'd prefer to wait for hours in Nairobi (yes I've done that) than have some officious asshole abuse me or my family. Thanks TSA you have really enhanced the world view of your cuntry oops..... country.

Same here - my family actually used to own property in the US but we all sold up and left due to the actions and policies of the TSA and DHS.

One thing though: I find it very tricky to search for flights between Europe and America while excluding all hits that require a transfer in the US. Currently, I have to do it "old-school" (ie: visit a human travel agent who does the search for me) but it would be a lot easier if there was a search engine that allowed this kind of filtering.Does anyone know of a flight

And Germany likes to call its country Deustchland. People who don't want to cause waves when speaking German say Deustchland, not "Germany". In America, North America is a continent, South America is a continent, "the Americas" refers to both, and "America" is a shortened name for the United States of America, just like "China" is short for People's Republic of China. If you don't want to be confused when discussing America with an American, learn this instead of insisting their entire country is wrong for what they call their own country.

Surely the point is equally true in reverse? When using an internationally frequented forum don't assume people are using the US 'definition' of America or that they are obligated to do so to be polite. Your point about German isn't really relevant as we're not speaking 'American' in the USA; we're speaking English on a forum used by people from dozens, or probably hundreds, of countries.

Use the dictionary of your choice and check the words "continent" and "country".

Well, I went one step further and used several of the dictionaries and encyclopedias of my choice and checked the word "America". Guess what I found.

From the New Oxford American (oh the irony!) Dictionary (emphasis mine):

America (also the Americas):a landmass in the western hemisphere that consists of the continents of North and South America joined by the Isthmus of Panama. The continent was originally inhabited by American Indians and Inuits. The northeast coastline of North America was visited by Norse seamen in the 8th or 9th century, but for the modern world the continent was first reached by Christopher Columbus in 1492.- used as a name for the United States.

Note that the definition of the landmass precedes the definition of the USA. Similar precedence will be found also in Wikipedia [wikipedia.org], Merriam-Webster [merriam-webster.com], and most other authoritative sources (admittedly not all, although all will acknowledge both meanings).

And regarding the definition of "continent" you need to realize that there are at least five different definitions for that word [wikipedia.org] using different criteria. You were taught a particular one that separated North and South America, but other people (in particular outside the USA) are taught other definitions and most of those don't make that distinction.

By the way, according to the CIA [cia.gov] the conventional short name for the United States of America is "United States", not "America".

Not in American English. There is North America and South America, but "America" unabmiguously refers to the United States of America. Australian English is the same, but with less of a stake in the confusion, are a little more lax. The only ones I've seen who insist that "America" refers to "The Americas" are those who learned English as a second language, most commonly those who speak Spanish run across the "false friend" and presume equivalence.

Actually, the accent Americans speak today is actually mush closer to real (old) English than what the English speak. Around the time when the US was just some colonies, French influence on language had become popular among the upper classes. Never really understood the the English/French love/hate thing they have going on.

That being said, I watch shows off BBC (love QI) and they refer to us as "America" all the time.

Who the hell are any of you that you get to decide how we refer to ourselves. We are not USians where ever you got you got that please stop, Ask anyone in the world who the Americans are, and I promise you more then 90% will tell you what we already know. That the term Americans refers to the citizens of the United States of America. Try it for your self, go down to Venezuela and call them American. I bet they won't thank you.

What gets me is The United States of Mexico is referred to simply as "Mexico" and nobody has an issue. Someone from there is "Mexican", again no issues. But repeat with USA, and everyone is in an uproar. The *only* consistent usage is to distinguish between America and "the Americas" (As your dictionary definition indicates "the Americas" is different).

First will someone please mod my first comment from this thread up out of the cellar. It shouldn't be modded down for correcting an untruth. Now to correct another person's untruth.

I am Canadian. I live in North America. I like America and most Americans but not always the governments. I am NOT American. I am Canadian. Get that through your head. And every single Canadian will say the same thing about themselves and Americans (except the idiots who think the War of 1812 is still ongoing). The whole is called 'The Americas'. Note the 's' at the end. Come to Canada and call someone American. If the aren't a tourist visiting from America, you will be flamed to your face. Most Canadians don't have a problem with Americans, and most like the country (but maybe not the governments). But it is like calling an Austrian a German because they both speak German. You will not be received favourably.

So here is your corrected geography lesson as you seem to be horribly confused and/or misinformed. In the north part of The AmericaS, is North America. It is divided into three countries: Canada, The United States of America (also known as 'America'... no 's' at the end), and Mexico. Canadians and Mexicans (who, when they are speaking English) use the terms, Canadian for Canadians, Mexican for Mexicans, and Americans for Americans, the latter of which are people who come from the United States of America. We do not call them 'United States of Americans'.

The rage runs deep here, considering I was just parroting what I read on Wikipedia about the continents a while ago. I'd like ask you people to give my mailbox a rest by no longer repeating the same "raaaah america is only the USA" thing. I got it by now. You don't like me saying such things.

America (singular) in common vernacular always refers to The United States of America. It's actually very simply and I can't figure out why people get this wrong. What is the name for people that live in Canada? Canadian. What is name for people that live in Mexico? Mexican. What is the name for people that live in The United States of America?..........

The only people who get it wrong are either second language speakers of English (in which case it's not entirely their fault as other languages use the term differently) and/or people trying to make a political point that they don't like the USA (in which case they're just being childish).

Indeed a friend of mine traveling from NL to Mexico with transfer in US was asked to produce transit visa in US (this was in 1998 I believe so even before TSA). He is Polish so the traditional friendship between the great nations of Poland and US cost him hours of stress and missed flight to Mexico. He also needed to buy a new ticket to Mexico and arrange for a new no-US transfer flight back to Europe because he was put on some sort of special list for terrorists and other persona non grata. This was as said before TSA and I see the situation 'improved' a lot since then.

Not sure what does it do except proves that US authorities behave like assholes towards anybody because they can - it certainly does not improve security. I guess US is a federation i.e. there are really progressive states nice to visit and maybe even work but I would never know because at this time even if I personally do not have to have a visa to travel there I would only go if they really pay well say with the rates used when you travel to war zone which is unlikely. Even if they paid well I would consider twice before going. I am considered conservative and pro-US by majority of my friends so go figure.

The exact same thing happened to me, just replace Poland with Croatia, Mexico with Finland and USA with Belgium. The asshole border police at the Bruxelles airport let me fly to Finland finally, but admonished me that "I am not allowed to come to Belgium for the next 10 years". This was 15 years ago and I now have a Finnish citizenship and have traveled all around the world, visited four different continents. But funnily enough, by pure chance I never went to Belgium again. Maybe it wasn't chance, maybe the bad experience made me put Belgium in the "fuck that country"-category.

But I wonder how much of the mess that happens at borders is caused by cultural misunderstanding. Years ago, traveling in South Asia, I had a problem at a border and I realized later that it was not because there was something about the country that was inhospitable, but there were aspects of my behavior that were giving unintended insult.

Of course, you want the people at borders (including airports) to be trained to be a little thick-skinned when dealin

...But I wonder how much of the mess that happens at borders is caused by cultural misunderstanding....I have great sympathy for the traveler described in the article, but I've never had a single problem traveling in the US and my only frustration with TSA is that they slow things down.

I'm sure some problems do happen because of cultural misunderstandings, but speaking as someone who grew up in the USA: the problems with the TSA are far more than cultural misunderstandings. I've had good experiences, to be sure, but some pretty horrible ones as well. I'll now drive half way across the country to avoid flying when it's possible, sadly that won't get me to many of the other places I need to get to.

In the USA they hire morons and idiots to work for thew TSA. none of them have any Law enforcement background and are nothing more than minimum wage private store cops that have been given far more power than they should have.

Yet there is a difference.
All European international airports have an area behind customs declared 'neutral', you don't (need to) enter the state of Belgium to just transfer flights at Brussels.

As far as I know the US does not have such facilities, during an international transfer at any airport in the USofA you have to enter and exit the US = pass the TSA probe.

I have personal experience flying from Paris, London and Amsterdam to places like Mexico and Trinidad.
When changing planes in Miami, Atlanta, Houston and Detroit I had to cross the US border, totally unnecessary and a real plight for those with passports of non-EU countries.

Direct flight to canada, preferably avoiding British Airways and Air Canada, you should be ok with Swish, KLM or Air France (if you come "close" to the US border the Canadian accepted to submit to US flight conditions, so you'd prefer an airline that takes the flights as north as possible.

If you go to South america you will find direct flight to brazil, and for any other south american country use the Argentinian LAN, Buenos aires is quite a good hub, and LAN tries do be cheap (not always the most reliable in timing though, but then... it's kind of a regional thing).

For Central America you can use Mexico city as an hub, and AeroMexico goes direct from europe to Mexico.

And finaly you can use www.amadeus.net and filter out: all american airlines, and prefer direct flights, this should enable you to find your flight quite easely and even if you might see now and then a share code flight that goes through some US hub, it will be clearly marked, and you'll be able to compare the price difference, and decide if in the faster/cheaper/less hassle criteria one or two trumps three...

Does anyone know of a flight search engine that allows you to do this ?

While it will not specifically filter out transfers through a particular country it lets you manually select individual flight legs and you can filter via airline (there are a lot of other options too) so just do not use a US airline and you should be good. I use it regularly to get from Canada to CERN avoiding the US and the multi-transfer, large lay over option via Montreal that the Air Canada site will invariably pick out purely for their benefit so you fly on an Air Canada flight all the way to Geneva

I totally agree. The TSA consists of a bunch of mindless idiots following stupid rules. There is nothing that those TSA idiots did that ever stopped a terrorist attack. The only thing the TSA is good for is wasting money and pissing of Americans and foreigners.

I totally agree. The TSA consists of a bunch of mindless idiots following stupid rules. There is nothing that those TSA idiots did that ever stopped a terrorist attack. The only thing the TSA is good for is wasting money and pissing of Americans and foreigners.

Wrong.

The modern TSA is a way to legally funnel government funds to contractors in the United States.

In addition, it gives the airlines and government a shield in case anything DOES happen. "Well, we at least TRIED to stop it."

The combination of the two means that it will never stop, and it will never get better.

It's not the contractors. It's the bureacrats who manage them. I've known several people in the job: they're underpaid, overworked, given stacks of conflicting policies and procedures, and practices change from particular site manager to site manager with every shift. There are places that do it very well, politely, helpfully, respecting the passengers and the needs of the elderly and children and frightened, tired people. But those careful agents and agencies tend to be at smaller airports.

For domestic travel anyway. I've traveled with Amtrak in California & across the South, coast to coast, no complaints at all. Actually I think there are still trains between Montreal & NY. What about Windsor & Detroit, Seattle & British Columbia, etc? From what I understand only freight trains run between Mexico & the US, but I assume there was passenger train travel between Mexico & the US in the past, say the late 1800s to the 1950s?

I'm an Arab professor. I look like an Arab and have an accent. I travel to the US all the time. Aside from my experiences in 2002, I have never had a problem getting into the US for conferences. The TSA/border control people are always very nice and polite. Maybe I've been lucky.

I was offered a job in Philadelphia. I turned it down. I also try not to submit to conferences in the US.

I have a common name. There have been several people with my name over the last fifteen years that the US would like to chat with, but the current one seems particularly scary. Generally my crossing the US border goes like this:

Customs: Where are you going? What are you going to do there? Oh shit! You, over there!

After that I usually get interviewed for an hour or so and then they let me go. That applies to transits through the US too, so I have to be careful when booking connecting flights.

Once recently I was driving across the border and ended up getting handcuffed on the hood of my car with thirteen freaked out border guards pointing their guns at me. Then I was hauled off to an isolation cell (left in handcuffs, handcuffs cuffed to the bench). After about half an hour a border guard walked in, said "you aren't black, are you?" and after fingerprinting let me go.

The TSA themselves are pussycats. They seem to be limited to hand searching my bags and I (up to five separate times before boarding a flight).

Yes, I have lots of redress numbers. One customs agent actually read my whole file once and remarked on it. Then said they were still going to want to see me in the special room anyway (she didn't bother to escort me there).

I try not to go to the US, unless I'm with someone I want to scare the hell out of.

I did travel to the USA last year and experienced no unfriendliness by TSA officers. Near the end of my trip my visa was extended without hassle so I could complete medical treatment after I had an emergency hospital visit. I was quite impressed and pleased with the US authorities really.

Regardless, do you really make a trip decision based on the few minutes of interaction you may have with the border authorities? I've been traveling extensively the last 7 years and most problems I encounter occur once I'm inside the country, not at the border. I'd rather have someone ask me the purpose of my visit and send me on my way than deal with hotel staff about a broken airco or having to return a rental because they gave me a car where one of the tires needs inflating every 3 days.

You had a good experience. Either that, or you're more tolerant of invasive scanning, searching, and questioning.

I'm terribly intolerant of being questioned, felt up, irradiated, or justifying my presence and/or my travel plans. Meeting just one asshole who thinks it his right to grope me, or to push me around, or even to be overly disrespectful could cost much, much more than the trip is worth.

You had a good experience. Either that, or you're more tolerant of invasive scanning, searching, and questioning.

I'm terribly intolerant of being questioned, felt up, irradiated, or justifying my presence and/or my travel plans. Meeting just one asshole who thinks it his right to grope me, or to push me around, or even to be overly disrespectful could cost much, much more than the trip is worth.

I've not flown since before 9/11/01, and probably won't again.

If you haven't flown in 12 years, how do you know what really happens at airports?

I've never had a TSA person ask where I'm going, let alone why I'm going. Tel Aviv on the other hand often involves a 60 minute conversation.

The process is security theatre, after hitting a WTMD there's no reason not you have a quick wipe over with a hand held detector and a second pass, which used to happen in the UK pre 2001. The U.S. policy of removing shoes is silly too, but ultimately there's bigger things to worry about.

How would I know about airport security? I read. I listen. There are stories of travelers being held and questioned because the TSA thought they were carrying to much money. They may only be abusive SOB's to one in a thousand passengers, but from what I read, it seems to be more like one in a couple hundred. Even if it were only one in ten thousand, why put yourself through it?

I disapprove of everything the TSA does. What they seem to do, more than anything, is to indoctrinate people into being docile toward people in uniform. I'm not a docile individual. Security theater is revolting, and I refuse to participate in any way.

HERE! HERE!! I was gonna mod you up but I decided to comment instead...

I disapprove of everything the TSA does. What they seem to do, more than anything, is to indoctrinate people into being docile toward people in uniform. I'm not a docile individual. Security theater is revolting, and I refuse to participate in any way.

ANYbody who puts up with being groped by the TSA is either a sheep, or is so desperate to get somewhere in a hurry that they ignore the fact that an abortion like the TSA (or the IRS also, for that matter) has NO business in an.. allegedly free.. country like the United States. The tactics these organizations (and MANY others in todays "government") use have NO basis in the Constitution and are sickening to anyone who loves this country and detests where it is headed.. I'm a 63 y/o Vietnam veteran and the last time I flew was in Sept 2003, and based on that experience, I've clearly concluded I'm done with flying on commercial airlines.. My experience was, admittedly, not as bad as the horror stories I've read since then, but it was enough to show me that I'm not going to tolerate ANY abuse from people who have no business in a police-like uniforn, and rather should be peddling hamburgers at McDonalds.. Everytime I hear of someone standing up to these thugs, I feel there may still be *some* hope for America.

So you haven't actually been through airport security, but you have avoided air travel for the last 12 years based on the horror stories you read online or second hand reports?

I fly 20 or 30 times a year, domestically in the US and internationally. Never once have I been questioned about my travel plans when flying domestically, and EVERY country in the world asks you about your travel plans when you go through customs internationally. (Try flying to/from Ben Gurion airport in Tel Aviv sometime for the ultimate "please justify your presence here" experience.) I have never been groped in hundreds of trips through airport security, nor have I considered myself to be "irradiated" any worse than I was going to get from spending several hours at 40,000 feet.

Look, I don't like the TSA security procedures... trust me, frequent flyers who have to put up with them all the time hate them more than anyone else. It's certainly your right not to fly. But... seriously... it's really not as bad as you (and apparently a lot of other Slashdotters who avoid the US or air travel all together) seem to think.

Look, I don't like the TSA security procedures... trust me, frequent flyers who have to put up with them all the time hate them more than anyone else. It's certainly your right not to fly. But... seriously... it's really not as bad as you (and apparently a lot of other Slashdotters who avoid the US or air travel all together) seem to think.

Yes, it is. Just because TSA employees can be nice, and the procedures "aren't that bad" doesn't mean they are good. It is unconstitutional. An invasion of our privacy, a waste of time, and a waste of money. And that is the point.
I only fly a few times a year, customs is a hit or miss. Sometimes they ask where you are going, what you are doing, many times they don't. I've had TSA ask me my destination a few times.
And every time I've opted out of the machines, I've had a hand stuck down my pants... Is that

I love visiting the US, but almost every time I've been put off by the unpleasant and agressive attitude of the people on the immigration desk. In my view they're much worse than the TSA on departure.

I'll put up with being photographed and fingerprinted (though I think it's downright daft), but my experience at immigration last time just took the piss.

I had made some trivial omission on my visa waiver form — I probably forgot to tick the box to say that I wasn't a spy, saboteur or Nazi war criminal (yes, this tick box really exists) — and I amended the form right there in two seconds, but the officious drone showed great pleasure in sending me to the back of the long queue like a naughty schoolboy.

Then when I got to the front of the queue again — this time to a different drone — I was accused of "abusing the visa waiver" because I had the temerity to visit the US twice in one year (once to San Francisco, that time to NYC, both fairly long visits). It was insinuated that I wasn't welcome back for some — unspecified — period of time. The visa waiver FAQ specifically states that there are no limits to the number of visits in any given period of time.

I guess the government is only interested in promoting tourism when it means handing out billions of dollars to the airlines.

I decided at the time that I would never go back to the US, but time heals all wounds and I'm starting to think I can put up with the necessary humiliation again.

As absolutely everybody else I've met in person in the US has been smart, funny and friendly I can only assume that all your assholes work in airports.

Already been there two times. I did not feel treated like dirt, but like others airports screening process...

Don't know what "other" airports you have been to, but I have been to airports in both Asia and Europe in the past few years (India, Japan, Germany, UK, etc), and NONE, no even a single one, had a screening process that is even remotely close to TSA.

For the past decade, I refused to travel to the US for the same reason, even though there are quite a few places I would like to visit.

Try Schiphol, Amsterdam. I found leaving Amsterdam much more tedious than leaving Dallas (both recent flights.) Same silly body scanners and security procedures but in Dallas I didn't have to wait and staff was reasonably friendly while in Amsterdam the lines were long and staff arrogant. They actually called a little girl stupid for forgetting to remove her water bottle.

More to the point: how can you know the TSA is so horrible if you didn't go there for a decade? I don't want to defend the TSA, I'm sure incidents happen and some airports in the US suck, but I get the feeling most people at many airports experience no real issues.

Finally, I do totally agree with regards to Asian airports. People still treat you like the well paying customer that you are instead of cattle that needs processing. Very refreshing.

Try Schiphol, Amsterdam. I found leaving Amsterdam much more tedious than leaving Dallas (both recent flights.) Same silly body scanners and security procedures but in Dallas I didn't have to wait and staff was reasonably friendly while in Amsterdam the lines were long and staff arrogant.

Was the Amsterdam flight to the US? I found that when I connected to a non-US flight, the rules were completely different than when I connected to a US flight from the same airport. Were you being checked a second time at the gate for a flight back to the US after having gone through airport security once already? Then the second one was a TSA line, even if staffed by locals and no TSA on site. The rules for the US are different, so many places with mixed destinations will have multiple check lines. On

You are absolutely correct, security at Tel Aviv is very creative and most certainly not a theatre run by barely alive monkeys like the TSA employs.
The Israeli routines are psychological and differ per person, very interesting to observe.

As are the ~18 y/o female subscripts doing the first line of questioning:)

I'm an American living in Switzerland and fly fairly regularly out of the major Swiss airports (Geneva and Zurich), as well as several other big European airports (London Heathrow, London Gatwick, Frankfurt, etc.). I also fly (or have flown) fairly regularly to/from major US airports (Washington-Dulles, Chicago, Atlanta, the New York airports, Houston, Philadelphia, San Francisco, Los Angeles, etc.

While each country and airport has its own different quirks for airport security and border controls, I've never really had a "bad" screening process with any airport -- including those in the US. The TSA's asked me to go through the nude-o-scope once (every other time has been the standard metal detector), I politely opted-out, they did a quick pat-down, and I was on my way faster than many people who went through the scanner. One time my wristwatch set off the metal detector in Zurich and they gave me a similar pat-down, only it was slightly faster as they weren't explaining exactly what they were going to do like the TSA guy was. Both were of similar degrees of "invasiveness" (that is, not unusually invasive for a standard pat-down search). The screening of carry-on luggage has been pretty much the same for decades and hasn't given me any hassle.

Even when taking unusual electronics in carryon luggage, such as scientific equipment to Oman, there hasn't been any issues.

The only difference I've noticed between the US and European screening is that the Europeans don't require that I take off my shoes. A minor thing and something I find fairly stupid, but hardly the end of the world.

To me, the big difference is at border checkpoints: the Swiss checkpoints are, as you might expect, quick and efficient. The British seem to hire cheerful, pleasant people to staff their checkpoints and I've never had any issues with them at all. Lines have been minimal, even leading up to the Olympics.

The American customs and border patrol people are dressed like street cops (including body armor) at the checkpoint. They routinely have drug-sniffing dogs and will randomly pull people out of line for additional searches. Even as a US citizen, they scrutinize my passport as if it were a fine work of art and take a moderate amount of time to do so. Evidently non-citizens from visa-waiver countries need to do some pre-travel background check online that costs $15 or so (but is good for 5 years), get fingerprinted, and have their photo taken. That's definitely a hassle and I think it's unnecessary and way more uptight than the European passport control process. Still, the whole process takes just a few minutes and you only need to go through it at the border; once inside the country it's not an issue.

Security guards that the government for some reason decided were federal agents. If this were any kind of public servant (apart from police of any kind), you could expect adherence to some kind of professional standard, but you're looking at the mall cops of the state security apparatus. A joke from top to bottom.

The importance of stories such as these, are that they open peoples eyes to a fundamental truth: The protections you think you have as an American, are only in force so long as it is convenient to those who are in power. In reality, we live in a state every bit as totalitarian as the USSR or North Korea...only that totalitarianism is selectively, and irratically enforced.

The first and last time I encountered the TSA (Toadlike Stupid Assholes) was a bad experience which I won't detail, so I no longer fly commercial. I drive wherever I go which could be a 3,200 mile round-trip to visit relatives. It takes about 2.5 days both ways out of my vacation time but I do get to see a lot of pretty country on the trip. I no longer need to put up with Toadlike Stupid Assholes wanting to question me and look in my luggage and feel my junk. I also miss out on the travel time to-from airports (at LAX it's very stressful) and I don't have to eat airport/jet plane food or listen to kids crying etc... etc...

The TSA is just one of the many violations of my god-given rights some of which are enumerated in the Bill of Rights. What really saddens me however is the sheep-like response of the majority of the public in putting up with these violations. Every time some government jack-booted thug violates a citizens rights the citizen should protest loudly to whoever will listen. But instead most of the sheeple will either knuckle under and go along to get along and be thankful he wasn't beaten or shot to death. When it happens to somebody else the sheeple sometimes laugh and make fun of the poor soul who is now in the hospital or morgue because he dared to open his mouth and protest or resisted (in the mind of the thug anyway) even slightly.

Yes. In many ways we live in a totalitarian police state. The fact that sheeple deny it is because they were mostly educated in a government school and raised by their parent sheeples. Few are the scholars who know what life would be like if the Bill of Rights were strictly enforced by placing every government thug on trial for rights violations and the agency he works for to be civilly liable for monetary damages.

If you cannot see the difference you need some schooling. See, the United States has the power to be as authoritarian as the government decides, but can hardly be called totalitarian. The fact that you're posting that without the threat of hanging from a rope or fifteen years in a labor camp in Siberia says something.

Read "A Day in the Life of Ivan Denosovich," he spends 15 years in a prison camp for moving past the front lines in "the great patriotic war" (WWII) and was shot at and imprisoned for desertio

The TSA has had almost free range to infringe on US citizen's rights without consequence (increasingly so since the terror-pocalypse).Publicizing these type of stories is good, but how can we best see their powers reigned in and actually enforce respecting our rights?

Publicizing these type of stories is good, but how can we best see their powers reigned in and actually enforce respecting our rights?

One thing to consider: just in the past few days, the TSA has finally complied with a court ruling from July 2011 that said they had illegally implemented new scanning policies without requesting public comment. EPIC has finally managed to get the TSA to set up the comment system [epic.org].

Some people might consider submitting comments. The TSA probably won't listen directly. But they will become part of public record, and if a court case ever does manage to really challenge some of the TSA policies, it will be harder for courts to say, "Well, nobody seems bothered very much by all the enhanced scanning and patdowns."

By the way, from the summary:

they are over a month beyond the statutory mandate for issuing a written determination

That's NOTHING. After illegally failing to take public comments before implementing a massive change to the accepted norms for searches, federal courts directly ordered the TSA to comply with taking comments. You can still read all the news stories from July 2011, when people thought we finally had some sort of victory for privacy -- maybe the TSA would finally listen. But they did NOTHING. Presumably, they were just waiting, hoping that Americans would get used to the new searches, and they wouldn't have to deal with the problem. After a full year had passed, EPIC finally got a hearing to consider a writ of mandamus to force the order to be adhered to. (Seriously -- a federal agency refusing to implement a simple court order?? After a year of dragging their feet, the courts, if they were at all honest, should have implemented an emergency stay right then and there and shut down the scanners until the TSA complied... at a minimum. If your average citizen did something like this, they'd be tossed in jail for contempt of court.)

Months more passed, and finally the writ of mandamus was denied, because the TSA said it would finally get around to dealing with this issue by Feb.-Mar. 2013. And it seems they waited until the last few days possible to finally implement the comment system.

If you have something serious to say about this, here's your chance [regulations.gov]. It may or may not make a difference, but I think it's certainly more likely to be effective than complaining on Slashdot every week or two when a new TSA story comes along.

I have never had any problems with the TSA myself, although they have every reason to grill me. I have a US passport issued in a foreign country, and plenty of stamps that could raise alarms. I just always answer the question succinctly and politely, and then they are satisfied. As much as I disagree with the whole TSA shenanigans, the place to debate their policies is not in the security line. If you start arguing with them about your constitutional rights, you will just hold up yourself and the rest of the line.

Yeah, don't make any waves. If they confiscate your medicine and only means of communication, just let them do it. You can sue them later...if you survive.

Good security is not about making clever rules. It's about dealing properly with the exceptions of those rules. Banishing liquids from airplanes is nothing more than a rule. Its level of security depends on how you deal with the situations in which you must, or at least should, allow a bottle of liquid on an airplane. If you don't have rules for that, if your personel is not trained and aware for those situations, your whole security setup is vulnerable for social engineering and it becomes nothing more than security theater.

None of you are willing to sacrifice ANYTHING or inflict ANY kind of inconvenience upon yourself to deal with the issues that need to be dealt with. You just sit there and whine and complain about everything, you make up excuses from thin air and say you've got no choice. Well, news flash, you do.

You want to get rid of the TSA?

Don't fly.

It's that simple. No, don't tell me you have to. You don't. You get enough people together and you all refuse to fly until the TSA is dismantled, and you know what'll happen? The airlines will get things changed in a hurry and the TSA will evaporate in a puff of invalid logic. It's that simple!

"Oh but it isn't and I have no choice and I need to fly and-"...

Yeah, that right there, that's the reason why the TSA still exists. You're unwilling to inconvenience yourself. None of you are. So the TSA will continue to inconvenience you instead, because they've got you by the balls (sometimes literally) and they know it. They'll continue to squeeze and squeeze, they'll expand out into the rest of the world like a cancerous tumour and then, when you find yourself in a police state and the TSA controls all major forms of travel- you'll wonder why you didn't do something sooner.

The fact that you think you have no choice is precisely what they want you to think, because that is what gives them control over you.

Cue the endless stream of "I have to fly, you're wrong, if I wish really hard I'm sure the TSA will go away all the same" replies.

At this point, they're still proliferated mostly just at airports; all other modes of transportation are minimally infiltrated.

So, yes, at this point, if everyone or the vast majority refused to fly, I'm sure the airlines would use their political connections and lobbying power to dissolve the TSA with haste.

I took a trip from the Midwest to the east coast a few weeks ago. Normally, this is about 4-5 hours of flying time and consumes 3/4 of a day with hurry-up-and-wait. But I decided I'd enough with the TSA's bullshit and took the train instead.

Not once was I stopped, groped or searched. I didn't need to go through any checkpoints or scanners. I didn't need to remove my shoes and strip half way down. I didn't have to take half the stuff out of my bag and then feverishly reassemble everything while a queue of annoyed people piled up behind me. I just bought my ticket and hopped on (what a concept, eh?)... and it's not like I was just hopping over from one podunk hick town to another, I went through Chicago and DC, not exactly calm places with lax security protocols.

But, on the other hand, the trip took two full days and two nights of travel each way, the coach seats were good, but useless for sleeping and the sleeper car I opted for on the subsequent nights were quite expensive.

So, yes, I've sacrificed convenience, money, time and comfort to defy the TSA and their bullshit. What have you done?

Dignity is only the start. It's security theatre, nothing else. Their function is to manufacture fear the same as a factory manufactures auto parts.

This is not an error or a misjudgement; causing people the maximum of harassment with the most egregious violations of legal rights and doing so with the minimum of justification is the goal. In IT terms, it's a feature, not a bug.

Anyone thinking the TSA will be reined in because of a public outcry or legal challenges is completely missing the point.

It certainly sounds like this guy found himself quite a loophole to effectivly circumvent the 3oz liquid restriction.

If the TSA has no way of disambiguating a "tropical energy drink" from medicine and there are no medical documentation requirements plus other laws provide privacy and accessibility protections for medical conditions then anyone can use these constraints to get any soft drinks they want thru in any amounts.

I say don't be hatin on the loophole finder for expliotin. Loopholes are fair game. Certainly less morally objectional than expliots of the cherckoff group and others who have directly profited from TSA "security theatre" egrgiously wasting US taxpayer dollars.

I just love the TSA. They sent my CAC card back through the X-ray machine, all alone, in the little tray. It was in my wallet and had set off a wand. For those of you unfamiliar with the CAC, it's a MILITARY I.D. Card that tells people you're in the Armed Services. It has a little 'not-so-smart' metal chip and card-reader plate. Seeing my I.D. card take it's lonely journey through the x-ray machine brought tears to my eyes. Tears of laughter. And that laughter hurt them more than any indignation I might have shown.

I've tried to address some of the questions people raised @ http://saizai.com/tsa#FAQ [saizai.com]
If you have more, please add them as responses to this. I don't guarantee I'll answer 'em all individually, but I'll try to make sure the FAQ addresses all substantive issues raised.
Cheers,
Sai

Good luck with your FOIA. I have a TSA issued TWIC card and just for fun I decided to get access to the information they have on file related to that card (finger prints, background check results, etc.) by issuing a FOIA request. It took them 11 months to produce a laughably incomplete response which consisted of: a scan of my passport photo and a photocopy of the standard application for the TWIC. The appeal process took about another 4 months but I did eventually get (mostly) what I was looking for.

See [wikipedia.org]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bivens [wikipedia.org] .
Basically, in cases of denial of Constitutional rights,
the doctrine of sovereign immunity does not apply,
and the individual bureaucrats can be held individually
responsible. You might think of it as the "Nuremberg
War Crimes" clause in US law...

He ought to sue those persons responsible,
as individuals. Going all the way
to the top. IMNHO, there is more than cause for
him to do so. And he certainly has standing...

A few multi-million-dollar judgements against
individual TSA agents and managers would do
a lot pour encourager les autres.

Oh look another one of these posts. "Slashdot, I was wronged. The party that wronged me broke several laws and treated me in a degrading way. What should I do?"

The answer is ALWAYS to HIRE A LAWYER!

HIRE A FUCKING LAWYER! Someone broke the law, you need a lawyer if you want to take any action against them. If they're violating deadlines and laws regarding interactions with people with disabilities then you probably have a good legal case lined up. However, if you sit on your ass then your opportunity is going to disappear. You need to hire a lawyer and act fast.

Some geeks have interests reaching beyond IT. This is expression of both i.e. their geekismo and their broad interests. I do not see a problem here albeit I admit the amount of IT or broader technology related articles is rather low or late. Maybe this is sign of times. The basic technology is offshored to Zamunda and the rest is too complex to be understood by an average geek and/or discussed in a popular thread. Quite frankly the others social sites for nerds are either populated by aggressive indihvidual

I'm normally not one for coarse language and insults, but, given that the atypical neurogenic tic disorder that the individual suffers from can lead to both life-threatening asphyxia and tachycardia, I would have to say that you are a massively apathetic twat. I hope that you never become afflicted by any debilitating condition, let alone wind up in a similar situation and encounter someone insouciant who denies you access to medicine or necessary sustenance, as I doubt you'd have the fortitude to stand up to your ilk.

Fortunately, your pococurante attitude served some purpose beyond broadcasting your own inadequacies: it spurred me to pledge several thousand dollars for this guy's legal fund.

Somebody close to me developed anomic aphasia recently, and I can certainly vouch for a recent finding of a UK health study - anybody who has suffered aphasia will vouch that it is one of the most debilitating disorders you can have. Aphasia is any condition that interferes with speech, and anomic aphasia basically is an inability to assign names to things (you can see an object and fully understand its deign/function/purpose, but you can't come up with the word to describe it and will not remember it even if told it).

Imagine being able to do anything normally, except communicate. This guy was fortunate that he could even write (and depriving him of a pen/paper is COMPLETELY INHUMANE - no different than putting a muzzle on somebody without such a condition). If you end up with damage in the language centers of your brain you're reduced to little more than gestures and a handful of words to communicate (the same regions govern ALL forms of language from speech to writing to sign language - no, there isn't an easy workaround), or pointing at pictures assuming a useful picture is there (and no, you can't spell words by pointing at the letters, or use any kind of symbolic representation of words, since that's the part of your brain that isn't working).

Most people who interact with somebody with aphasia assume they're mentally retarded, and treat them as such. (Not necessarily in an unkind manner, but rather by assuming that they need to be treated paternalistically and that they shouldn't be allowed to make decisions for themselves for their own sake.) While conditions that can cause aphasia can also cause other cognitive problems, they do not always do so. In general somebody with aphasia is no more or less intelligent than anyone else. However, they make poor advocates for themselves so they suffer quite a bit.

A recent episode was when the person I was talking about had to take a driving knowledge test. It was multiple choice, was computer based, and even included some pictures and recorded readings of all the questions and their answers that could be played repeatedly. However, it took about 10-15 attempts to pass the test (one per day per the state's rules, and spending about an hour to get through about a dozen questions). If you had asked them to give a free response to any of the questions they could have answered the questions verbally and satisfied you that they understood basic driving laws. However, somebody with anomic aphasia needs freedom to find words they can understand - it is very difficult for them to understand a fixed sentence just by listening to it over and over. Simply comparing the various choices to determine how they differ took many repetitions. In the end they passed both knowledge and driving examinations, but it was quite an arduous journey. It likely would not have been possible but for the fact that they had recovered quite a bit of their ability to communicate.

In general we as a society do not do a very good job accommodating those with neurlogical disorders.

Yes, the Cover Your Ass reaction. I see the exact same thing in school discipline cases; everyone needs, as their highest priority, to CYA. We live in a blame-oriented society; there are no accidents, there are no mistakes, someone has to be punished for every negative outcome. Zero tolerance. Our legal system has made us like this. Every TSA agent or school principal who irrationally hassles someone, starts doing that so they're not the one who Let Something Bad Happen.

Of course many people, who've already been made to feel powerless in their own lives, discover this authority allowing them push people around feels good. So they do more of it...

You left out the part where he quoted the TSA's own policy (that any amount of liquid for a medical condition is allowed once it has been screened), and that he had it screened.

He doesn't expect anyone to "get by" by saying "I need my juice, for medical reasons, I'm notgoing to tell you more." - He expects that the TSA will follow its own written and well documented procedure, and the previously determined rulings of the courts over what the TSA is expected to do. They have the means to screen the liquid, and their policy allows an unlimited quantity of it to be taken on board.

In other words, he wants them to follow the law as it is written. They did not do this.

Try reading the article, and also maybe the summary too. I find it helps when commenting on the story so you don't look like a moron.

Did you even listen to what I said? This is the government arbitrarily deciding that the constitution does not apply in airports, and searching everyone without a warrant or even a solid reason. All I can figure is that you don't care about the constitution at all.

Furthermore, driving a car, riding a train, and riding a boat are also all optional activities. Hell, travel in general can be an optional activity! The fact that something is an optional activity does not mean the government should be able to bla

People are stupid. The TSA repeatedly told us to remove EVERYTHING from our pockets. I can't tell you how many people tried to pass through without doing that, then held the fucking line up while they were put through again. I posit that there are individuals who just make trouble for themselves by not following simple directions. Yeah, I know about rebellion. Standing in line at the airport isn't the place to be rebellious.

Actually, it was the TSA that was holding the line up with their nonsense, not the people who kept things in their pockets.